Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, Income Tax Rates Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading

McKim supported the bills as a small step in the right direction, particularly when combined with Greens amendments. McKim argued that the current capital gains tax discount disproportionately benefits the wealthiest one per cent and older Australians, exacerbating intergenerational inequality. McKim criticised the government for failing to seize the opportunity to implement more comprehensive reforms, such as removing tax breaks for investors with multiple properties. McKim emphasised that while the changes were insufficient, they marked progress in addressing the housing crisis.

Blyth opposed the bills, describing them as a budget of broken promises that would increase national debt and tax hardworking Australians. Blyth argued that the changes would act as a tax on aspiration, discouraging small businesses and first-home buyers. Blyth highlighted that the government's own budget papers predicted 35,000 fewer homes would be built due to the tax changes. Blyth warned that the reforms would lead to higher rents and reduced confidence in the housing market, ultimately harming young Australians.

Brockman opposed the bills, criticising the lack of scrutiny and the rushed legislative process involving a deal with the Greens. Brockman argued that the changes would create uncertainty and deadweight loss for small businesses and self-managed super funds. Brockman highlighted the inconsistency in targeting self-managed super funds while leaving industry super funds unaffected. Brockman warned that the reforms would reduce housing supply and undermine the Senate's role as a house of review.

Pocock supported the bills, viewing them as a necessary step to address the housing crisis and reduce inequality. Pocock highlighted the Greens' success in securing amendments to close loopholes for self-managed super funds and limit the Treasurer's power to extend tax discounts. Pocock argued that the current tax system favours wealthy investors over renters and young people, contributing to record-low housing affordability. Pocock called for further action, including increased investment in public housing and stronger renter protections.

Collins opposed the bills, arguing they would tax Australian dreams and discourage small business growth. Collins highlighted concerns from small business owners who felt the changes were unfair and would drive investment overseas. Collins noted that the government's own budget papers predicted a reduction in housing supply, which would exacerbate the housing crisis. Collins warned that the reforms would lead to higher rents and reduced confidence in the economy.

Bragg opposed the bills, arguing they breached the democratic mandate and failed to address the root causes of the housing crisis. Bragg contended that the reforms would reduce housing supply and increase costs for builders and developers. Bragg criticised the government for focusing on tax hikes rather than improving productivity and addressing labour issues in the construction sector. Bragg warned that the changes would benefit vested interests, such as large super funds, while penalising individual investors.

lead

Scarr argued that the government had misled voters by promising no changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing during the election campaign. Scarr cited economic theory suggesting that lower tax rates can increase revenue by encouraging investment, warning that higher rates would drive founders and capital offshore to jurisdictions with more favourable regimes. Scarr highlighted the impact on the mining sector, noting that retail investors fund high-risk exploration projects that lead to economic discoveries. Scarr stated that the changes would disincentivise investment in junior mining companies, potentially reducing future mineral discoveries and government revenue.

Cadell characterised the legislation as a tax grab that would raise $77 billion while failing to address housing supply issues. Cadell argued that taxing capital gains on shares and small businesses would penalise young people saving for deposits and discourage investment in Australian entities. Cadell noted that budget documents predicted 35,000 fewer homes would be built under the policy, exacerbating the housing crisis. Cadell criticised the government for increasing taxes while failing to provide comparable concessions to individual investors compared to institutional funds.

Kovacic argued that the tax changes would hinder young Australians' ability to build wealth through shares, ETFs, and small businesses. Kovacic claimed the government had lied about its intentions and was prioritising subsidies for industry super funds and global institutions over individual investors. Kovacic cited independent research suggesting rents could rise significantly in major cities due to reduced investment in rental properties. Kovacic contended that the policy would create a vicious cycle where young people are trapped in renting while facing higher costs and taxes.

O'Sullivan described the legislation as a fulfilment of the Prime Minister's long-held political ambitions rather than a response to current economic needs. O'Sullivan reiterated that the government had made numerous promises during the election not to change capital gains tax or negative gearing arrangements. O'Sullivan expressed disappointment that the government was breaking its word, arguing this would damage trust in democratic institutions. O'Sullivan indicated he would continue his critique in a subsequent speech, focusing on the impact on families and aspirations.